The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, in order to oppose the police officer’s illegal performance of official duties, only took a bath in the process of responding to the defects of recording by using a mobile phone, and did not assault the police officer’s flaps.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 6, 2014, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case: (a) around 22:50, the Defendant: (b) took a dispute with the Defendant on the ground that the said telecom E and the key of the room was broken down in the “Del” calculation column located in Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (c) was the police officer belonging to the Heungdong Police Station F District Unit, who was called upon 112, and was urged by the Defendant to return home from the victim H; and (d) Hahhhhhhhhhhh, E, etc., who was urged by the victims to return home from the F District Unit of the Heung-gu Police Station, and Hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, she got the victims to pay the above accounting unit by drinking, and dumbling G and H-gu’s ebbbbage and tight parts.

Accordingly, the defendant openly insulting victims, and interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling reports.

B. The lower court determined that all of the assaults stated in the facts charged can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the witness H, G, and E’s respective legal statements, accusation letters, CDs (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, dynamic images, voice recording files), etc.

C. 1) The evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, and in particular, the following circumstances can be revealed in view of the video and sound recording of the video and audio recording files, which were duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

① On the day of the instant case, there was a dispute between the Defendant and E with respect to the key to the telecom that the Defendant received, and G and H were dispatched to the site upon the Defendant’s report.

② According to the above video and sound recording files, it can be recognized that the following acts were committed at the time and place of the instant facts charged.